Social Justice News, 7-27-06

Well, I’m getting around better this week. Which is a good thing. Unfortunately, I can’t tell that by the way my foot is feeling. Oh well; it’ll get better in time. There’s a mixed bag of news this week –enjoy!

Washington Gay Marriage Ban Upheld: So much for equal rights in yet another state.
But a lawsuit challenging Maryland’s ban will go to that Supreme Court in December (see second article).
http://159.54.227.3/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060727/NEWS/607270368

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-gaymarriage0727,0,2896249.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

Don’t Feed the Homeless: Las Vegas has made it illegal for anyone to feed homeless folks in city parks, thereby shutting down the mobile soup kitchens that they depend on. Apparently, these soup kitchens were making the parks ‘unusable’ by other city residents –meaning those with homes, food, and money. Orlando followed Las Vegas’ lead earlier this week.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0607250150jul25,1,1326773.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/26943

Hearsay May Be Used Against Detainees: This proposal would allow hearsay evidence to be admitted as evidence against the Guantanamo detainees. Gee, whatever happened to the burden of proof? Let’s see, the last time hearsay was used in the court was –oh yeah, the Salem witch trials. Maybe we need to resurrect the use of the term ‘witch hunt’.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/26/military.detainees.ap/index.html

Touring the North Pole for Signs of Climate Change: This NPR interview comes from a reported on board a Russian Icebreaker that takes people on tours of the North Pole. The fabled Northwest Passage, so long sought after by generations past, may soon become a reality.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5572495

Stop Flouting the Constitution, Mr. President: The bipartisan American Bar Association has determined that our Noble Leader’s use of signing statements is not only illegal, it violates the U.S. Constitution. Why do I think that he were of a different party –one that didn’t control Congress –the ‘I’ word would be in use? Gee, we can impeach a guy for having an affair but not for violating the Constitution?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/24/lawyers.bush.ap/index.html

Toxic Tin Cans: Those FEMA trailers so generously given to hurricane refugees may be poisoning the people they were meant to help.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14011193/


Website of the week: Do you know what YOUR impact on the planet is? Find out!
http://www.myfootprint.org/

UU Joke of the Week: Q: Do UUs ever pray?
A: Only when they think a democrat is going to lose an election.

An Inconvenient Truth

I went to see An Inconvenient Truth again last night, this time with several members of my church. That movie is more scary than any horror movie I’ve ever seen. Then again, this is real –and it affects the entire human race and the whole planet, so how could it not be scary?

Afterwards a bunch of us went to a nearby coffee shop and had a discussion. Now, my church is a pretty enlightened group. We are UUs, after all. Everyone there knew going in what a big problem Global Warming is. And we’re all Liberals and involved in the Green Movement to one extent or another. So, I was astonished to discover how many of them passionately believe that we don’t need to worry that much –because our technology will save us.

I think I’m missing something here. Maybe it’s the definition of ‘save us’. Because the last time I checked, it was our technology combined with human nature that got us into this mess in the first place. If ‘save us’ is defined as keeping the human race from extinction and/or from destroying the planet, then I’ll buy it. But they seemed to think that it could stop global warming, preserve our civilization, and keep our lifestyles intact.

Hmm, in geek speak ‘Does Not Compute’. Now I love these people, don’t get me wrong on that, but I think that they are dead blind on this issue. How in the name of God is any technology going to stop this madness while also allowing us to maintain our wasteful, consumerist, disposable lifestyle? And that’s just for those of us in the first world; there are 6 billion plus people on this planet, and something like 80% of them do not live like we do. But they all want to, and it’s obvious why. So, do we deny them that if we are to continue living like that? We couldn’t even if we tried. It would also be highly unethical to oppress others in the name of self-advancement, no matter what the dictators of history and the modern day would say. But consider this: if even just China elevated all of its people to First World standards, it would DOUBLE humanity’s impact on the planet. Multiply that by another five.

Again, it does not compute. There is going to have to be a major paradigm shift in this world if we are to survive, much less conquer climate change. To take into effect the seriousness of this problem, just consider Greenland. It lost 52 miles of ice last year –some of that even in December. Furthermore, the rate of loss had doubled in the past five years. Let’s assume for a moment that this loss rate continues to increase linearly at 20% per year for the foreseeable future. In 45 years, the total amount of ice lost would be over 900,000 square miles. The total area of Greenland is only 822,000 square miles. Now, obviously this is a very simplistic model. It doesn’t take into account the volume of the ice, only the area, it doesn’t allow for the small amount of refreezing and new ice fall in winter –and it doesn’t take into account that such a system is really non-linear, and the acceleration rate increases exponentially as time passes. So, despite its limitations the message is clear –without immediate drastic action, the Greenland Ice Sheet will be gone by the time my as yet to be born children enter college. Sea levels will rise up to 20 feet world wide, inundating low-lying areas and displacing millions upon millions of people.

What I ask you, are the chances of anything being done to stop this in time? Or of any measures taken having effectiveness? In today’s world, I estimate the probability at just above zero.

Which brings me to my next point. The movie included a great quote from Winston Churchill:

“The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place, we are entering a period of consequences."

We have all ready entered that period of consequences. From here on there will just be more of them, and they will be harsher. The true consequences of climate change can not be measured in money, or property loss. Stronger storms, rising sea levels, droughts, all of these things also are not good measures. The true measure is in lives, human and otherwise. ONE human life lost unnecessarily is too many. Never mind more.

We passed that threshold long ago. The tragedies in Niger and Darfur are occurring partly because of the drought that has dried up most of Lake Chad. The drought was due at least in part to climate change. The thousands dead in the heat waves across Europe a few years ago, in the flooding worldwide, the deaths due to Katrina. All of these are due in part or in whole due to climate change. We are responsible for them as a species.

It will get worse. Many more are going to die. I do not mean to sound like a doomsayer; I am merely reading the writing that’s on the wall for all who have eyes to see. And it breaks my heart. I see every early death as a tragedy beyond compare. I wish with all my heart and soul that we can find a way to stop this madness before it’s too late. But I’m afraid it all ready is for too many. The question is now, not can we stop it before it gets too bad, but how much will we lose before we come to our senses?

Lebanon and Morality

The longer I live and the more I experience the more I come to realize that there are very few moral absolutes in the world. There are very few firm lines, places where you can draw a line and say this is right and this is wrong; here is the light and here is the dark. Mostly, there are a lot of shades of gray in between light and dark. Or so I’ve come to find.

Take the situation in Lebanon for instance. There’s no real dispute that Hezbollah is a terrorist group. I define ‘terrorist group’ as a group that knowingly and deliberately attacks civilians. I don’t go in for the definitions that are bandied about these days and keep expanding; to hear some folks talk, any form of dissent constitutes terrorism! And I’m well aware that some governments fall under my definition of terrorist group.

Back to Hezbollah. Yes, they’re terrorists. And terrorism is wrong. Period. But –I can see what drives them to it. It doesn’t condone it, but it does explain it. It goes back to the old adage, desperate people do desperate things. Take away someone’s options and they will react by taking whatever is left. I may condemn their means, but I can’t condemn everything about them out of hand.

And then there’s Israel. Yes, they’re responding to the kidnapping of two of their soldiers. But –does that justify what they’ve done? They’ve not only attacked Hezbollah, but they’re pretty much destroying Lebanon a bit at a time. They’ve destroyed the airport and every bridge, bombed every major road, taken out factories, hospitals, schools. Not to mention residences and apartment complexes and everything else. Hundreds of Lebanese civilians are dead, and more will surely follow. If not in the fighting then in the humanitarian crisis that will inevitably come hard on the heels of the fighting. People will die from starvation, disease, and worse. All of this –over two soldiers? And we’re supporting it.

Both sides are in the wrong here. But is either side more wrong. And, how much more blood must be shed before this insanity is stopped?